Evening Republican, Volume 20, Number 274, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 November 1916 — HAS THE U. S. A. DUTY IN MEXICO? [ARTICLE]

HAS THE U. S. A. DUTY IN MEXICO?

Major Healey Writes His Impressions Of That Country—Holds Intervention Inevitable.

Since my-t£tum from the MexicanTexas border I have been asked by many persons my opinion of conditions along the border and what would be the eventual outcome of the situation affecting the two nations. It has been impossible for me to express ir a short time a complete idea of my impressions and feeling that the same interest that has been expressed by many is felt by every citizen I am here giving expression .to my personal convictions. Bear in mind, please, that I have no special information, that I have never been across the Mexican border and that whatever opinion I express is based upon my study of that country since the beginning of the fight to depose Diaz and which soon demanded attention in this country for two principal reasons. First, because citizens of the United States guaranteed protection by treaty and by. the policy of civilized nations, had established homes and made investments there. Second, because this nation was pledged by the well and long established doctrine of Monroe to the adjustment of affairs on this side of the Atlantic instead of having interested foreign nations make the adjustments. This study has been augmented by four months’ border service, during which time I have come in contact in a limited way only with Mexican people, but it has been sufficient to confirm me in the belief first formed at a greater distance from them that peace and prosperity will not come to Mexico until a protectorate is established in that country for reopening industries and a systematic effort made to educate, Christianize and inspire the poor drifting millions that compose that nation. I have never looked upon Mexico with an object of greed. I have never looked upon its people with hatred. I have rather regarded it a great pity that a country rich in natural resources, which means rich in opportunity for mankind, should be controlled by a people so unable to appreciate its value and .so incapacitated to develop it and improve themselves. When Columbus discovered. America and other strong hearts came here to combat the hardships of a new country, they found the Indians in possession. These poor creatures were unaware of the value of their great estate, but no one could deny their complete right to its possession. Progress demanded that they make way for those capable of developing the many resources and our proud and powerful nation is the result. The original colonies have been added to from time to time as conditions disclosed the necessity for such expansion and there is certain 1 y no person in the United States unwilling to admit the benefit to the territories added or the value they have returned to £ur nation. They came at great cost and with great sacrifice, just as our national freedom came and later as our unity was preserved but the result is the great American nation of today. Don’t think that I am starting an argument for territorial expansion. I am not; but I want to call attention to the fact that so far no blunders of annexation have occurred and to the further fact that the good has not been alone to the original States but to the territories and the people who were thus brought into the influence guaranteed by our method of government. Ido not believe that the nation’s power to do good has ceased, nor that its work in the world’s improvement is to suddenly stop. I do not hold that annexation is necessary for the shedding of this influence, for we have the example of Cuba to show that development can be secured by means of protectorate, but should it result we have every reason based upon experience to us that good results would follow. I have argued briefly my viewpoint for I fear in this day and age there are too many people who are willing to sacrifice the right* the duty and the well-estab-lished policy of the nation for the easier course that seeks to create a roseate path for the present and to truts to fortune for the future. You will agree with me that there is something wrong with Mexico. You will probably admit that there are a good many things wrong. You will probably also acknowledge that the main thing is the lack of leadership and the lack of willingness of the people to be led. I have expressed myself at times by saying that they do not respect leadership, do not subbit to authority, do not have convictions of right or wrong policies, do not figure on any national future. These negStive views have left them generally without any personal or state, and often quite honorless. Destroy the ambition of a man

and his ruin is accomplished. Destroy the hope of the collective unit 3 of a nation and* the ruin of the nation is certain. I believe that much of the present woe of Mexico is the consequence of decades of bad management, during which time the door of opportunity has been gradually closing to the poor of the nation. Entering into the cause of the present national debauchery is the temperament of the people. The Indians of America could not be moulded into collective citizenship. Some individuals showed ability but schemes of education and colonization proved that they were unworthy of the trust of government. The Indian is a prominent factor in Mexico. They live along lines of least resistance. Three hundred years of drifting has destroyed the possibility of Mexican people making a success of Mexico. We find it necessary to provide power in this country to control those who are without ambition or who dp. not respect our laws or conform to our established rules of development. To restrain those who are lawless in this country we find it necessary to have police forces, coutrs and jails. And what is more important, we find it necessary to administer with rules of justice that impress those who are to be controlled that a square deal is coming to them. In Mexico the correctional institutions have not been reformatory. Justice has been denied. Discontent has brewed. Opportunity has been absent. Misery has become so common that a great portion of ths population do not realize' the depths of national depravity into which they have fallen. Power is necessary do restore them to a condition worthy of the country in their care. There is no one in Mexico, and no collective force in Mexico, able to supply the power. This has been plain for four years. has been suggested for a much longer period. What, then, is to be done with Mexico ? Recently one of the United States consuls to one of the cities in Mexico expressed himself to me to the effect that “God must be placed in Mexico” before it can become a nation of hope. He recited an incident of deception of his own experience with a man in power in that country. He kept faith with one of the Mexican leaders and informed him when he was to leave Mexico on official order. The compact required the Mexican to control his people from demonstration, but instead of controlling them he excited them to great anger and threatened violence.

Along the Mexican border are many towns with more Mexicans than Americans living in them. Brave young women arc teaching the Mexicans the English- language and giving them the first encouragement toward citizenship that has been experienced for generations among their people. Recently at the invitation of our regimental chaplain some thirty or more of the Mexican children of the town of Mercedes were brought to our camp in an army truck and from a platform gave an entertainment in' broken English. They waved American flags, sang patriotic songs, spoke patriotic speeches and gave evidence of the possibility of future usefulness. Thus must education an I Christianization be the basis of a reconstructed Mexico. We are sending missionaries to foreign lands to ful fill the injunction of preaching the Gospel to all the world. Our missionaries find it necessary to have the protection of laws to give them a foothold and they find it slow progress indeed. Right here on our doorstep is a nation whose citizenry has fallen into a state of paganism and the hand of duty is becoming to us to supply the power for reconstruction.

That it must come is my firm conviction. Just what form it will take is a national question. It seems „o me that a protectorate that will police the country best answers the needs. Driving the bandits to their lairs, giving every encouragement to those who want peace, working out agrarian justice, holding out hope and perpetual peace and protection and law enforcement to those Who have been bred under a government of delusion. In the meantime schools must be established, churches erected, the brotherhood of mann inspired, it is not the work of a day, nor a year, nor a decade. It required 300 years to secure a foothol|d for religion in Japan. It will require time to make Mexico a worthy neighbor to the United-States and, properly administered, the cost of the work must be assessed against Mexico. If the result should b§* annexation the greater the benefit to Mexico, the greater the benefit to civilization, and the broader the influence of the grand old stars, and atripe6. There is a bit of sentiment in my discussion, but Americanism is not all commercialized. Duty should oe business mixed with conscience, just as it was when Washington battled for freedom, just as our heroes went forth to sacrifice their lives for the preservation of the union and just us we entered Cuba, the Philippines, Porto Rico, the Hawaiian Islands and i

just as we are building the Panama canal. There is another phase of the question that we are forced to consider. We are not the only foreign nation that has discovered the rich treasure*, of Mexico. The oil, the mines, the agricultural and stock possibilities, the sisal fields,, the ports, the climate, make Mexico a grand country for investment and just as the nations of the world over a hundred years ago looked with greed upon the new-found colonies of thi3 western continent, so do they now look upon stirfe-rent Mexico. When the European war ends we will probably be asked by England and France and Geimany to give an account ‘>f our self-acknowledged charges on this side of the Atlantic. Their peace will probably be cemented with treaties that will look after their welfare and not ours. We may neglect our own rights there, we may deny protection to American lives and American investments, but we are obliged to administer with fine discretion the affairs of other nations or expect them to look after their own affairs without regard for us. And so it might behoove to think while We can do it clearly and possibly avoid the necessity of hasty action when an emergency arises.

All of these reasons—duty, conscience, policy, foreign relations—lead me to believe that some form of in tervention must come: in Mexico. I do not speak politically. I do not speak from the standpoint of a soldier but as an American citizen interested in the future of our own country and the welfare of our neighbors. During the next four .years the foreign war will in all probability come to a close and great problems of farreaching importance must be solved. It would be a splendid thing if we could be in a position to say to the nations across the sea, “We have looked v after your interests in Mexico and you can continue to respect the Monroe doctrine.” Ji fear the result if we shun the duty so plain to any who have studied Mexico or have learned first hand of conditions there. GEORGE H. HEALEY.